# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 36 77

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Dale Edward W hi te

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa , W at erl oo

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Ju ne 8, 2 01 7

Fil ed : J ul y

13 , 20 17

[Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.Dale Edwar d W hi te ch al le ng es th e 47 -m on th se nt en ce im po se d by th e di st ric t

co ur t 1 aft er he pl ead ed gu il ty to be in g a pr oh ib it ed pe rs on in po ss es si on of a fir earm

an d a m m un it io n, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § § 9 22 (g )(3 ) an d 9 24 (a)( 2) . W e aff irm.

On Ja nu ary 2, 20 16

, W h i t e a n d hi s fat he r, K.W

., were di sc us si ng a pr ob le m

W hi te was ha vi ng wit h th e si gh ts on on e of hi s .22 cal ib er rif le s whil e th e two were

dr iv in g to th ei r Nas hu a, Io wa, res id en ce. K.W

. own ed th e res id en ce an d li ve d th ere

wit h W hi te an d W hi te ’s fia nc ee. W he n th e two arri ve d at t h e i r r e s i d en ce, W hi te

ret rie ve d th e pr ob le m rif

le

, a Mag te ch .22 LR, an d br ou gh t it to K.W

., who was se at ed

in a ch ai r in th e li vi ng ro om

. The rif le di d no t co nt ai n a m ag azi ne

, bu t W hi te di d no t

ch eck to see if i t was lo ad ed

. The rif le sl ip pe d fr om

W hi te ’s han d a nd acci de nt al ly

di sc ha rg ed as h e h an de d i t t o K.W. The bu ll et st ru ck K.W

. in th e he ad , cau si ng hi s

de at h.

Offi cers ex ecu te d a se arch warra nt at th e res id en ce la te r th at da y as pa rt of th ei r

in ve st ig at io n in to K.W .’ s dea th

. The y reco ve red fro m th e li vi ng roo m th e Mag te ch

rif le an d sp en t sh el l cas in g, as well as an ad di ti o n a l f o u r rif le s an d two rev ol ve rs

.

Offi cers reco ve red fro m W hi te ’s up st ai rs be dr oo m an ex te nd ed -cap aci ty, 25 -ro un d

.22 cal ib er m ag azi ne

, a se co nd .22 cal ib er m ag azi ne

, an d .22 cal ib e r a mm u ni ti on

.

The y reco ve red an ot he r .22 cal ib er m ag azi ne fro m a gu n cab in et lo cat ed at th e to p of

th e st ai rs to th e se co nd flo or

. A se co nd se arch warra nt was ex ecu te d at th e res id en ce

on J a n u a r y 5, 20 16

, res ul ti ng in th e reco ve ry of an ad di ti on al 42 fir earm s fro m

va rio us lo cat io n s t h r o ug ho ut th e ho us e. Offi cers se iz ed th ree rif le s an d th ree

sh ot gu ns fro m th e to p of th e st ai r s t o t h e se co nd flo or ; on e rif le an d fiv e sh ot gu ns

fro m th e li vi ng roo m ; o ne sh ot gu n fro m th e ki tc he n; fo ur rif le s an d se ve n sh ot gu ns

fro m a do wns ta irs be dr oo m ; fo ur ha nd gu ns

, si x rif le s, an d two sh ot gu ns fro m K.W .’ s

be dr oo m ; an d two ha nd gu ns

, two rif le s, an d two sh ot gu ns f

r o m Wh i te ’s be dr oo m

.

1 The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de

, th en Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t

fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.

-2

-All to ld

, of

fic ers reco ve red 49 fir earm s fro m th e res id en ce, ei gh t ha nd gu ns

, 21 rif le s,

an d 20 sh ot gu ns

, no ne of whi ch was se cu red in a sa fe, lo ck bo x, or gu n cab in et

. Afte r

of fic ers fo un d m ari

juan a an d m et ha m

ph et am in e pa rap he rn al ia in W hi te ’s be dr oo m

,

he ad m it te d to “ be in g a us er” of bo th dr ug s, ha vi ng la st “ sm ok ed ” on th e m or ni ng of

Ja nu ary 5, 2 01 6. Whit e su bm it te d a ur in e sa m pl e on Ja nu ary 6

, 20 16 , whi ch tes te d

po si ti ve for th e p res en ce o f am ph et am in e an d m et ha m

ph et am in e.

W hi te ’s pr es en te nc e rep or t (PSR) calc ul at ed a ba se off en se lev el of 20 un de r

§ 2K2 .1(a )(4 )(B) of th e U.S. Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s Man ua l (U.S.S.G. or Gui de li ne s)

be cau se th e of

fen se in vo lv ed a se m ia ut om at ic fir earm th at was cap ab le of acce pt in g

a la rg e-ca pa ci ty m a g a z i n e

. It al so reco m m en de d a 6- le ve l en ha nc em en t un de r

Gui de li n e s § 2 K 2

. 1( b) (1 )(C) be cau se th e of fen se in vo lv ed be twee n 25 an d 99

fir earm s. Afte r a 3- le ve l red uc ti on fo r acce pt an ce o f r e s p o ns ib il it y

, th e PSR

cal cu la te d a to ta l of

fen se le ve l of 23

, whi ch

, co up le d wit h a cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y

of I, res ul te d i n a n a dv is or y sen te nc in g ra ng e o f 46 to 57 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t.

W hi te ob jecte d to th e 6- le ve l e n ha nc em en t un de r § 2K2 .1(b )(1 )(C)

, arg ui ng

th at on ly two of th e fir earm s reco ve red fro m th e res id en ce “ be lo ng ed ” to hi m an d th at

he di d no t ha ve do m in io n ov er th e res id en ce own ed by hi s fat he r. In th e al te rn at iv e,

he arg ue d th at he sh ou ld be as se ss ed a 2- le ve l en ha nc em en t un de r § 2K2 .1(b )(1 )(A)

be cau se he was res po ns ib le fo r on ly se ve n fir earm s: th e M a g t e c h r i fle an d th e si x

fir earm s reco ve red fro m hi s be dr oo m

. The di st ric t co ur t ov erru le d W hi te ’s ob jecti on

an d fo un d th at he was res po ns ib l e f o r at le as t 25 fir earm s. The co ur t reas on ed th at

it was “ im m at eri al who own ed th e fir earm s,” bu t ne ve rth el es s to ok a “ m or e

co ns erv at iv e ap pr oa ch ,” co nc lu di ng th at W hi te act ua ll y or co ns tru ct iv el y po ss es se d

th e 26 “ fir earm s fo un d in hi s be dr oo m an d in th e co m m o n a r e a ” o f t h e res id en ce.

Afte r co ns id eri ng th e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fact or s, th e co ur t im po se d th e se nt en ce se t

fo rth ab ov e.

-3

-W hi te fir st arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y cal cu la te d hi s ba se of fen se

le ve l un de r § 2K2 .1(a )(4 )(B)

. Bec au se W hi te di d n ot rai se th is cla im of pr oc ed ur al

erro r be fo r e t he di st ric t co ur t, we rev ie w on ly fo r pl ai n erro r. Uni te d St at es v.

Vau gh n

, 51 9 F.3 d 80 2, 80 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). To ob ta in rel ie f un de r pl ai n- erro r rev ie w,

a de fen da nt m

us t sh ow th at th ere was an erro r, th at th e erro r was “ cl ear or ob vi ou s

un de r cu rren t la w,” an d th at th e erro r affe ct ed hi s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s. Uni te d St at es v.

Po it ra

, 64 8 F.3d 88 4, 88 7 (8t h Cir. 20 11 ). Eve n if a de fen da nt m ak es th is sh owi ng

,

we wil l ex erci se ou r di sc ret io n to co rrec t a pl ai n erro r “ on ly if it ‘seri ou sl y affe ct s th e

fai rn es s, in te gr it y

, or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .’ ” Vau gh n

, 51 9 F.3 d

at 80 4 (c it at io n o m it te d)

.

Sect io n 2K2 .1(a )(4 )(B) ap pl ie s if th e de fen da nt was a “ pr oh ib it ed pe rs on ” at

th e ti m e of th e of

fen se an d th e “ of

fen se in vo lv ed a

. . . se m ia ut om at ic fir earm th at is

cap ab le of acce pt in g a la rg e cap aci ty m ag azi ne ,” whi ch is de fin ed in rel ev an t pa rt to

m ean :

a se m ia ut om at ic fir earm th at ha s th e ab il it y to fir e m an y ro un ds wit ho ut

rel oa di ng be cau se at th e ti m e of th e of fen se (A) th e fir earm ha d at ta ch ed

to it a m ag azi ne or si m il ar de vi ce th at co ul d acce pt m or e th an 15 ro un ds

o f a m m un it io n; or (B) a m ag azi ne or si m il ar de vi ce th at co ul d ac c e p t

m or e th an 15 ro un ds of am m un it io n was i n cl os e pr ox im it y to th e

fir earm

.

U.S.S.G. § 2K2 .1 cm

t. n.2

. The pa rti es ag ree th at

, as a se lf- ad m it te d dr ug us er, W hi te

w a s a “ pr oh ib it ed pe rs on ” wit hi n th e m ean in g of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (3 ); t h a t h e

po ss es se d a la rg e-ca pa ci ty m ag azi ne fo r th e Mag te ch rif le ; an d th at th ere was no

m ag azi ne at ta ch ed to th e Mag te ch rif le at th e ti m e of th e in ci de nt

. W h i t e arg ue s,

ho wev er, th at th e la rg e-ca pa ci ty mag a z i n e was no t in “ cl os e pr ox im it y ” to th e

Mag te ch rif

le as req ui red un de r § 2K2 .1(a )(4 )(B)

, be cau se th e rif le was re c o v ered

fro m th e li vi ng ro om

, whi le th e la rg e-ca pa ci ty m ag azi ne was reco ve re d fro m hi s

up st ai rs be dr oo m

.

-4

-W hi te can no t carr y hi s bu rd en to sh ow th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d an erro r

th at was “ cl ear or ob vi ou s” un de r th e la w at th e ti m e of th e co ur t’s ru li ng

. See Po it ra

,

64 8 F.3 d at 88 7. W hi te ci te s no co nt ro ll in g au th or it y fro m th e Su pr em e Co ur t or th is

co ur t th at di rect ly ad dr es se s th e m ean in g of th e ph ras e “ cl os e pr ox im it y ,” as it is us ed

in § 2K2 .1(a )(4 )(B)

. 2 In th e ab se nc e of an y co nt ro ll in g or pe rs ua si ve au th or it y on th e

is su e, it is a t t h e v e r y l e as t “ su bjec t to reas on ab le di sp ut e.” See Pu ck et t v. Uni te d

St at es

, 55 6 U.S. 12 9, 1 35 (20 09 ). Acco rd in gl y , any al le ge d erro r co m m it te d by th e

di st ric t co ur t i n d et erm in in g t ha t t he lar ge -cap aci ty m ag azi ne an d t he Mag te ch rif le

were in cl os e pr ox im it y f o r p u r po se s of § 2K2 .1(a )(4 )(B) was ne it he r cl ear no r

ob vi ou s un de r

th e la w at t he ti m e o f th e co ur t’s ru li ng , and was t he refo re no t pl ai n.

See id

. ; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Olan o

, 50 7 U.S. 72 5, 73 4 (1 99 3) (n ot in g th at “ pl ai n”

is syno nym ou s wit h “ cl ear” or “ ob vi ou s” an d th at

, “ [a]t a m in im um

, co u r t [ s ] o f

a p p e a l s can no t co rrec t an erro r [u nd er pl ai n- erro r rev ie w] un le ss th e erro r is cl ear

un de r cu rren t la w”); Uni te d St at es v. W at so n

, 84 3 F.3 d 33 5, 33 6, 33 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 )

(fi nd in g no pl ai n erro r whe n “ ne it he r th e Su pr em e Co ur t no r th is co ur t” ha d res ol ve d

th e is su e pr es en te d an d th e is su e was no t “ se tt le d be y on d de ba te ”), cer t. de ni ed

, 13 7

S. Ct . 13 58 (20 17 ); Uni te d S ta te s v . Pazo ur , 60 9 F .3d 95 0, 95 4 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) (pe r

cu ri a m) ( f

i n d in g no pl ai n erro r whe n “ ou r rev ie w of th e [Gu id el in es ] an d rel ev an t

p r e c e d en t di d no t un co ve r an y au th or it y cl earl y an d ob vi ou sl y su pp or ti ng ” t h e

de fen da nt ’s cla im

on ap pe al ); Uni te d S ta te s v . Sic ki ng er , 17 9 F .3d 10 91

, 10 93 (8t h

Ci r. 19 99 ) (fi nd in g no pl ai n erro r whe n th e de fen da nt co ul d no t sh ow th at an y di st ric t

co ur t erro r was “ cl ear an d ob vi ou s” ). W e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s cal cu la ti on

2 W hi te ci te s Uni te d St at es v. Mu ld oc k

, 48 3 F. A p p ’x 8 2 3

, 82 8- 29 (4 th Ci r.

20 12 ), in su pp or t of hi s arg um en t th at th e la rg e-ca pa ci ty m ag azi ne an d th e rif le were

no t in cl os e pr ox im it y

for pu rp os es of § 2K2 .1(a )(4 )(B) . Apart fro m th e fact th at it

is no t co nt ro ll in g au th or it y in th is ci rcu it

, Mu ld oc k di d no t di rect ly ru le on th e is su e.

In st ead

, th e co ur t no te d th e “ un di sp ut ed te st im on y ” th at th e m ag azi ne an d fir earm

were “ si x to t e n f

e e t” ap art an d co nc lu de d, “ [W] e can no t sa y th at th e di st ric t co ur t

erre d in fin di ng th at

. . . th e m ag azi ne was in cl os e pr ox im it y to th e fir earm .” 48 3 F.

App ’x at 8 29

.

-5

-of W hi te ’s ba se of fen se le ve l un de r § 2K2 .1(a )(4 )(B) was no t pl ai n erro r. W e le av e

res ol ut io n of th e “ cl os e pr ox im it y ” is su e fo r a cas e in whi ch it is pr op erl y rai se d an d

pr es erv ed

.

W hi te a l s o a rg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ap pl y in g th e 6- le ve l

en ha nc em en t un de r § 2K2 .1(b )(1 )(C) ba se d on th e nu m be r of fir earm s in vo lv ed in th e

of fen se

. He co nc ed es th at he po ss es se d th e Mag te ch rif l e an d th e 6 fir earm s

reco ve red fro m hi s be dr oo m

, bu t he ren ews hi s co nt en ti on th at he di d no t po ss es s th e

19 ad di ti on al fir earm s reco ve red fro m th e co m m on area s of t h e res id en ce. The

co ur t’s de te rm in at io n of th e nu m be r of fir earm s in vo lv ed in th e of fen se fo r pu rp os es

o f § 2K2 .1(b )(1 )(C) is a fact ua l fin di ng th at we rev ie w fo r cl ear erro r. See U n i t e d

St at es v. Veg a , 72 0 F .3d 10 02 , 10 03 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3)

.

“ A de fen da nt ’s po ss es si on of fir earm s ma y be act ua l or co ns tru ct iv e, so le or

joi nt .” Id

. at 10 03

. Co ns tru ct iv e po ss es si on “ req ui res bo th kn owl ed g e t h at th e

c o n t r a b a nd is pr es en t an d do m in io n ov er th e pr em is es whe re th e co nt rab an d i s

lo cat ed .” Uni te d St at es v. W ay s

, 83 2 F.3 d 88 7, 89 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ), cer t. de ni ed

, 13 7

S. Ct

. 11 25 (2 01 7)

. W hi te co nc ed es th at he ha d kn owl ed ge of th e fir earm s reco ve red

fro m th e co m

m on area s of th e res id en ce. He arg ue s, ho wev er, th at he di d no t ha ve

do m in io n ov er th e res id en ce an d th us was no t in co ns tru ct iv e po ss es si on of th o s e

fir earm s. It is tru e th at a de fen da nt ’s “ m ere pr es en ce” in or “ m ere c on ne ct io n” to a

res id en ce whe re co nt rab an d is lo cat e d is no t su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h th at he

co ns tru ct iv el y po ss es se d th at co nt rab an d. Id

. at 89 7- 98

. Bu t W hi te was no t m erel y

pr es en t at or c on ne ct ed to th e res id en ce fro m whi ch th e fir earm s were reco ve red ; i t

was hi s pr im ary res id en c e an d ha d be en so fo r m an y y ears

, an d in whi ch he ha d

un res tri ct ed acce ss to th e co m m on area s. See Uni te d St at es v. Dav is

, 44 9 F.3 d 84 2,

84 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (n ot in g th at co ns tru ct iv e po ss es si on m ay n o t r e s t on “ m ere

pr ox im it y ” bu t can “ be e s t ab li sh ed by a sh owi ng th at th e fir earm was se iz ed at th e

de fen da nt ’s res id en ce” )

. W hi te th us ha d bo th kn owl ed ge of th e fir earm s an d

do m in io n ov er th e res id en ce su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h hi s co ns tru ct iv e po ss es si on of th e

-6

-fir earm s reco ve red fro m th e co m m on area s. Als o un av ai li ng is W hi te ’s arg um en t th at

hi s fat he r’s an d br ot he r’s own ers hi p of th e fir earm s reco ve red fro m th e co m m on area s

of th e res id en ce ne ga te d th e go ve rn m en t’s cl ai m th a t he co ns tru ct iv el y po ss es se d

th os e fir earm s, fo r co ns tru ct iv e po ss es si on m ay be “ so le or joi nt .” Veg a

, 72 0 F.3 d at

10 03

. The di st ric t co ur t th us di d no t cl earl y err in fin di ng th at W hi te ha d co ns tru ct iv e

po ss es si on of t he 19 fir earm s re co ve red fro m th e co m m on area s o f th e res id en ce.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-